Ballot result: ISO/IEC 26300:2006/DCOR2

[robert_weir at us.ibm.com]

Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld at rap.no> wrote on 04/29/2011 08:39:02 AM:

> I hope we are not far from eachother. In the current case there should
> not be any substantial differences. However, it might be enlightening to
> share views on general cooperation between OASIS and WG6.
> 

Hi Keld,

As you probably know, there are a range of ways in which PAS and Fast 
Track submissions can be maintained. At one extreme, the submitter 
controls maintenance and submits corrigenda and amendments directly to the 
SC Secretariat for balloting, with no WG participation.  At the other 
extreme the work is done entirely in a WG.  Either way is permissible, as 
well as intermediate degrees.  Which method to use is proposed by the 
submittor and approved by NBs when approving the DIS ballot. That is how 
JTC1 works.   I don't think there is any one correct answer, since not 
every standard, JTC1 SC and PAS submittor is the same.

In the case of IS 26300, the maintenance agreement is detailed in a 
Memorandum of Understanding between OASIS and JTC1.  Not between the ODF 
TC and SC34, but between our parent committees.  This is not negotiable by 
us in this WG.  You have a copy of these agreements in the SC34 repository 
as N 1148 and 1149.

I recommend going back and reading the agreement between JTC1 and OASIS on 
the maintenance of IS 26300:

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1148.pdf

In this maintenance regime, the OASIS ODF TC is given the responsibility 
for coordinating maintenance.  Not SC34, not WG6, but the ODF TC.  The 
agreement further called for NB experts to join the OASIS ODF TC in order 
to provide NB input:

"2) National Body input, including but not limited to the submission of 
defects and amendments, can
best be achieved by the participation of JTC 1 experts in the ODF TC of 
OASIS. Supplying that
participation is undertaken by SC 34 of JTC 1."

This is aligned with the JTC1 Standing Rule on PAS, which states:

"JTC 1 may negotiate with the submitter the option of maintenance handled 
by the submitter as long as there is provision for participation of JTC 1 
experts"

In other words, cooperation between JTC1 and the PAS submittor is 
facilitated by allowing for the participation of NB experts in the 
submittor's maintenance committee. 

OASIS has extended this invitation, and is willing to offer free OASIS 
memberships for this purpose.  I have repeated the offer in liaison 
reports at SC34 plenaries.  But sadly, since the approval of this MoU, 
zero SC34 NB experts have joined the OASIS ODF TC.  I'll repeat the offer 
here.  If anyone is interested in taking us up on the offer of membership 
in the ODF TC, please send me an email.

I believe the ODF TC has been carrying out its responsibilities, as the 
party responsible for coordinating the maintenance of IS 26300.  We've 
seen 1 COR published and an additional DCOR and FPDAM submitted. 

If you feel we need a greater degree of cooperation, then perhaps SC34 
should undertake steps to fulfill their commitment under the agreement, 
i.e., have NB representatives join the ODF TC to provide NB input?

In any case, I hope you can understand, that regardless of how some other 
WG's might work, that it would not be possible for the ODF TC to 
coordinate (which is our stated responsibility) the maintenance of IS 
26300 if comments are presented with zero notice at a WG6 meeting. 
Absolutely impossible.  We don't need the full six weeks called for with 
documents for SC meetings.  But we do need at least a week, preferably 
two.  That allows us to consult with our membership, which includes most 
of the implementors of ODF, and ideally would also include NB experts who 
have joined the ODF TC per the MoU.  This also allows us to compare any 
proposed changes with the published OASIS versions of these corrections 
(our Approved Errata) to confirm that the proposals do not cause 
divergence.  This is a principle that is also agreed to in the MoU.

On the ODF TC we treat our maintenance responsibility seriously.  We have 
a maintenance topic on every week's meeting agenda.  We keep a detailed 
defect log.  We're working simultaneously on corrections to ODF 1.0 and 
ODF 1.1, at the same time as we approve ODF 1.2 and start work on ODF 1.3. 
 There is a lot going on with ODF, but only a small portion of it visible 
in WG6.  That is why the fullest degree of cooperation will only come when 
interested NB experts join the ODF TC.  We have a diverse technical 
committee in OASIS.  That is where the action is.  If you participation is 
limited to WG6 then your experience will be inferior, mainly dealing with 
administrative minutia.  For the most part, WG6 is the nexus for an 
informal NB expert review of the correction of typographical errors, where 
the corrections originate in another committee (the ODF TC) and are 
approved by yet another group (SC34 NBs).  There is not a lot that happens 
in the middle.  The technical vitality, where the real work is occurring, 
is with the OASIS ODF TC.  I hope you will consider joining us there.


Regards,

-Rob